United States v. Lateef Fisher

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: April 1, 2025
• Docket: 24-7035
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 24-7035 Doc: 8 Filed: 04/01/2025 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-7035

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

LATEEF FISHER, a/k/a Apple,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. Gina M. Groh, District Judge. (3:15-cr-00018-GMG-RWT-1)

Submitted: March 27, 2025 Decided: April 1, 2025

Before THACKER and BERNER, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lateef Fisher, Appellant Pro Se. Kimberley DeAnne Crockett, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-7035 Doc: 8 Filed: 04/01/2025 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Lateef Fisher appeals the district court’s order denying his motion challenging the

amount of his monthly restitution payment. The amount of Fisher’s monthly restitution

payment is administered by the Bureau of Prisons (BOP). We have held that “an inmate’s

challenge to the BOP’s administration of the [Inmate Financial Responsibility Program] is

a challenge to the ‘execution’ of a sentence” and that “attacks on the execution of a sentence

are properly raised in a [28 U.S.C.]§ 2241 petition.” Fontanez v. O’Brien, 807 F.3d 84, 87

(4th Cir. 2015). Fisher failed to properly raise his challenge in a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition.

Further, he did not demonstrate that he pursued an administrative remedy with the BOP. ∗

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm

the order of the district court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

∗ To the extent Fisher challenged the imposition of the restitution, he did not raise the claim in his initial motion, and such a challenge should have been properly addressed on direct appeal.